Contextual semantics of ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan evidentials

Hill, Nathan W.

Abstract

DeLancey (2012) eloquently makes the point that the generativist notion of
'grammaticality' is a misleading metaphor by which to understand human language. Despite this, DeLancey himself claims that a number of constructions in 'Lhasa' Tibetan cannot be said at all, cannot be said by ethnic Tibetans, or can only be said by ethnic Tibetan. These purported usage restrictions are not accurate. The contextual semantics of 'Lhasa' Tibetan evidentials falsify DeLancey's and Aikhenvald's use of hierarchies of information source to explain the use of evidentials. 'Lhasa' Tibetan also falsifies several other of Aikhenvald's typological generalizations.

Citation

Hill, N. W. (2013). Contextual semantics of ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan evidentials. SKASE Journal of theoretical linguistics, 10(3), 47-54

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: Jan 1, 2013
• Deposit Date: Dec 24, 2013
• Publicly Available Date: Mar 12, 2025
• Journal: SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics
• Electronic ISSN: 1336-782X
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 10
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 47-54
• Publisher URL: http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL24/pdf_doc/03.pdf
• Additional Information: References : Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2012). “The essence of mirativity.” Linguistic Typology 16.3: 435-485. Bartee, Ellen (2011). “The role of animacy in the verbal morphology of Dongwang Tibetan.” Turin, Mark and Bettina Zeisler, eds. Himalayan Languages and Linguistics: Studies in Phonology, Semantics, Morphology and Syntax. Leiden: Brill. 133-182. Chang Kun and Betty Shefts Chang (1984). "The certainty hierarchy among Spoken Tibetan verbs of being". Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 55.4: 603–635. Chonjore, Tsetan (2003). Colloquial Tibetan: a textbook of the Lhasa dialect with reference grammar and exercises. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives. Denwood, Philip (1999). Tibetan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DeLancey, Scott (1986). "Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan." W. Chafe and J. Nichols, eds. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood: Ablex Pub. Corp. 203-13. DeLancey, Scott (1990). “Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan.” Cognitive Linguistics 1: 289-321. DeLancey, Scott (2001). “The mirative and evidentiality.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 369-382. DeLancey, Scott (2012). “Still mirative after all these years.” Linguistic Typology 16.3: 529–564. Dickinson, Connie (2000). “Mirativity in Tsafiki.” Studies in Language 24: 379–421. Garrett, Edward (2001). Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD thesis at University of California Los Angeles. Heargreaves, David (2005). “Agency and intentional action in Kathmandu Newar.” Himalayan Linguistics 3: 1–48. Hill, Nathan W. (2012). “'Mirativity' does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects.' Linguistic Typology 16.3: 389-433. McEnery, Tony and Andrew Wilson (2001). Corpus linguistics: an introduction. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Miller, Roy Andrew (1955). “The Independent Status of Lhasa dialect within Central Tibetan.” Orbis 4.1: 49-55. Pereira, Fernando (2000). “Formal grammar and information theory: together again?.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. (Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences) 358.1769: 1239-1253. Róna-Tas, András (1985). Wiener Vorlesungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte Tibets. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien. Sapir, Edward (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Bruce and company. Volkart, Marianne (2000). “The meaning of the auxiliary morpheme 'dug in the aspect systems of Central Tibetan dialects.” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23.2: 127-153.